When reached by Pete Thamel of the New York Times Saturdaynight on his cellphone, a contrite Gee congratulated the Horned Frogs on beating one of the best the Big Ten has to offer. Additionally, Gee offered a little insight into the cuisine consumed by someone who doesn’t “know enough about the Xs and Os of college football.”

Kudos to Gee for publicly crediting TCU for the historic win, but it’s the private attitude Gee let slip in November that’s the major hurdle in ridding college football of the BcS and replacing it with a playoff system.

Easy way to solve this make every conference an automatic qualifier and let them play in a playoff. So simple a cave man could do it

neverwas1 says:Jan 2, 2011 1:25 PM

college football does have a playoff, it’s call the regular season. all year long i had to hear how weak the big east is and how tough TCU and the Mountain West is….Ok, so if TCU loses a game in the Big East, then all of a sudden they are garbage? The little sisters benefit more from the current system than anybody…just ask the hung over TCU fans and players this morning if they are upset with the system…..

neverwas1 says:Jan 2, 2011 1:42 PM

Easy way to solve this make every conference an automatic qualifier and let them play in a playoff. So simple a cave man could do it–
———————————————–

Yes, very simple. So a one or two loss team from SEC or PAC 10 might get bumped for a WAC or Sun Belt conference champ. Playoff is not a bad idea but we still have the problem of teams that play an easy schedule bumping those who played high stakes, tough regular season games that benefit all who watch them.

gotta keep my mouth shut says:Jan 2, 2011 1:49 PM

lol I will say it once again, blitz is a little boy on the internet just trollin around, lookin to piss people off

As opposed to a 10-6 NFC East team not making the playoffs because it didn’t win its division while a 7-9 NFC West team does? Do you think that the 7-9 got to be 7-9 because they played a hard schedule or an easy one? What about the Patriots, who went 18-1? They went 6-0 in one of the worst divisions that I can ever remember and they had a very weak overall schedule and yet, managed to make it to the Super Bowl and had their perfect season killed by a DB who couldn’t make the game winning pick. Before Devaney showed up at Nebraska, the Big 8 used to be known as Oklahoma and the Little Seven and yet, they won several National Championships so you don’t know if the “gauntlet” is a true indication of how a team will perform because it some times a little luck for a team to get into position to win (Like Alabama against Tennessee, last year).

Let’s not forget that during all this chest thumping that the Big 10 was doing their share about the “gauntlet” that their teams have to run and that’s their highly ranked 1-loss teams were proof about how strong their league was and then they got spanked. According to all those chest thumpers, Wisconsin was SO superior because they racked up all those points while running the gauntlet at the end of the year and yet, TCU didn’t blink and they didn’t put up 70+ points like they did against Austin Peay, Indiana and Northwestern.

A lot of people continue to live off the old mentality that these “Big” conferences are so much better than the little guys and forget or don’t even know the differences between NOW and the old mentality when the little guys, even in the Big conferences, were barely giving out scholarships while the Big guys were passing them out like Pez. From unlimited to 105 to 95 to 85, the number of scholarships have gone down and the talent gap has closed, even between I-A and I-AA, where it’s 85 vs 63, now. 30 years ago, it would have been unheard of for a BCS team to lose to a I-AA team and now, it’s becoming more common (and we’re NOT talking about Vanderbilt and Duke, we’re talking Michigan and Virginia Tech).

Sure, given a playoff, the BCS teams would probably dominate but at the same time, the SEC wouldn’t have necessarily have won all 4 of the previous championship games because they may not have had the same favorable matchups OR they might have but it could have been different teams as the second place team doesn’t survive to make it to the championship. You don’t know until you actually play the game and that’s why I’m for a playoff and for not keeping the little guys out in the name of elitism.

neverwas1 says:Jan 2, 2011 2:29 PM

Edgy- well put, point taken. What is your thought on our current high school system in our country? Would it be ok to and have all of the large schools play the small towns all year long to get a better record? Are you upset that the small schools do not play the biggest in the championship game?
I am not so much worried about protecting big schools. What I don’t want to happen is large schools abandoning great OOC matchups, purposely watering down their schedules jsut to compile a great record. ……My main point is there was once a benefit to creating the toughest schedule possible. That is qucikly eroding. Props to TCU but Fresno State should be getting the most respect from the nonAQ’s. Then I hear TCU saying they were playing for BSU? BSU has played 4 maybe 5 games ever. Fresno State should be getting the credit.

granadafan says:Jan 2, 2011 2:31 PM

Uh, the regular season is NOT a playoff (strangest comment we’ve read so far). The last games of the season still leave questions unanswered. The smaller schools have a playoff and so could Division 1.

To the Buckeye fan, Gee is not such a standup guy that he would insult TCU in the first place. Saying he’s eating crow is for publicity because he was caught with his pants down with the whole football world laughing at him.

I’m rooting for OSU to finally defeat an SEC team, but Gee made an arse of himself. Kudos to him for having a sense of humor about it though.

neverwas1 says:Jan 2, 2011 2:38 PM

Uh, the regular season is NOT a playoff (strangest comment we’ve read so far—–

Are you saying that TCU was not playing an elimination game every week?

*******************
I can’t help but laugh at your analogy because unless you’re really ignorant or your state does it differently, most states divide their schools by enrollment, which has NOTHING to do with how the NCAA divides their schools (Quick, tell me how many people are enrolled at some of the MWC and WAC schools and how they compare to some of the Big conferences. I bet you’d be surprised).

Now, as for the watering down, you absolutely have no idea about the BCS system or the system that they would use to determine a playoff. It’s watering down that cost Auburn their chance years ago. Besides the fact that the voters took extra special care to piss on non-AQs over their schedules, the computers were far more accurate in putting them in their place. If a BCS or non-AQ team played a watered down schedule, the computer would hurt them for it and BTW, what do you think that they’ve been doing already or do you think that for one moment that Oregon played Portland State or Auburn played Chattanooga or Wisconsin played Austin Peay because they knew that these teams would give them the challenge that their players needed? They were doing all this before the BCS and unless the NCAA shuts down their access to I-AA, they’ll do it long after the BCS is gone. It wouldn’t be a factor for a team that wins its conference and it would be a detriment for at-large bids so I don’t see this as a way to water down schedules. Think about how so-called watered-down schedules have hurt teams with the NCAA tournament committee. Do you think that the football people would not use the same kind of criteria?

Gee’s comment is still accurate – his point was NOT that TCU couldn’t beat somebody in a single bowl game – anybody can win one game. Gee’s point was that its not fair to give teams like Boise and TCU a pass into the biggest blow games just because they didn’t lose their toughest games of the year – Utah or (Opps!) Nevada.

TCU should enjoy 2010, because as bad as the Big East is, its much tougher than playing San Diego State, UNLV, and New Mexico.

geauxlsu says:Jan 2, 2011 4:47 PM

Gee isn’t wrong, he is right on. TCU does play a horrible schedule that offers little challenges to a pretty good team. Just because they were able to step it up in one game and beat a fairly good Wisconsin (that is not a top 10 team) doesn’t take away from the fact that TCU plays a really, really bad schedule.

neverwas1 says:Jan 2, 2011 5:02 PM

Edgy- geez you really are “edgy” easy big fella….No need to call anyboyd ignorant, it is the new year and you should be feeling groovy….
Your analogy compared NCAA to NFL, I was pointing out it is more accurate to compare it to high school athletics because they are both non-professional. I still not get an answer to my question, do you think that high schools with the “small” enrollment should be pitted against the teams with the “large” enrollment to figure out who the “real” state champ is rather than giving out 4-7 state titles based on school size? No agenda, just curious….
My other point was and still is that I am sick of hearing non AQ’s complaining about the system. They just won the Rose Bowl for crying out loud and then we have get on the comments as hear about the system is screwing the little sisters. The other thing that bothers most people is the non aq schools calling the conferences they would love to be a part of, weak. You can’t call a conference weak that you fantasize about joining. The big ten might be down but name one AQ that wouldn’t give thier left one to join it…

neverwas1 says:Jan 2, 2011 5:21 PM

I meant name one “non” AQ that wouldn’t love to join it…. beer for breakfast is a bad idea. don’t do it kids.

Regarding every regular season game being a ployoff. That is only true for non-AQ teams. The current system madates that any non -AQ team has to be undefeated to get a BCS game, let alone have a microscopically small chence at the NCG.

Take a look at the current 4 BSC games (not the NCG). Of those 4 games, only 1 team was undefeated and that was TCU. That mean 7 AQ teams with at least 1 loss got a BCS game. On the flip side, Boise State, who lost a very close game in OT to a top 20 ranked team got relegated to one of the most minor of bowl games. They only had 1 loss and look where they ended up. Yet every 1, or even 2, loss AQ team is either in 1 of the BCS bowls, or a mojor non-NCS bowl game. Tell me there’s no collusion going on! When a lousy 4 loss Husky team gets the Fiesta Bowl (and were not even ranked) over a 1 loss, 10th ranked Boise State…something is definately wrong!

Even if Boise State did not get a BCS bowl, they certainly deserved much better than the MAACO Bowl…that’s for damn sure. This brings up the other major flaw with the BCS system, conference tie-ins with the major bowls. The AQ conferences have worked out deals with the major bowls that are structured to keep non-AQ teams from participating and getting the hefty payouts. They need to do away with the conference tie-ins so teams cam be matched more for their season record, rather than conference loyaty. I would love to have seen Boise State paired up with Miami, or LSU, or Ohio State…all at least 1 loss teams. Oh wait…those teams are either in a BCS bowl, or a major bowl game.

geauxlsu says:Jan 2, 2011 6:05 PM

I agree that Boise Should have been in a better bowl. But they did lose to Nevada who beat a whopping ZERO ranked teams this year to give Boise its one loss season. What’s more impressive, LSU’s two losses to #1 Auburn and #8 Arkansas, both on the road, while beating 5 other ranked teams or Boise’s one loss season while losing to Nevada, who again doesn’t have a single impressive victory?

The non-AQ’s and little guys are the biggest winners in the BCS system. The big conferences always had the bowl tie ins and always will, BCS or not.

What the BCS allowed was the non-AQ’s a shot at some big time games. TCU in the Rose Bowl, Boise in the Fiesta, Utah and Hawaii in the Sugar? Not possible without the BCS.

Now that the BCS has placed some of these teams in big games and of course they now all of the sudden “deserve” more.

ITS NOT ABOUT WINNING ONE GAME!!!!! The non-AQ’s have a infinitely easier road to a good record, especially an undefeated record and herein lies the problem.

So, you saying the Big East is a better conference than either the WAC, or Mountain West.? I don’t think so. Why should they get an AQ slot over those 2 conferences? The Big East doesn’t have any teams ranked in the top 25. Yet a 4 loss Conn deserves a BCS…and this is the top team in the Big East? How are they any better than Boise State or TCU? Granted TCU got the Rose Bowl, but they had to be undefeated to do it.

An easier road than the Big East, I don’t think so.
I thinl that if some of these big name scholls had to come out west once in awhile to play some of the top schools in the Mtn. West or WAC, they wouldn’t thinl it was so easy. Florida hasn’t played an OOC game out of Florida for 16 years! Other teams are nearly as bad. LSU, Oklahoma (except the 2007 Fiesta), Auburn, Florida State…etc. almost never cross the Mississippi River unless it is a bowl game. I would love to see how LSU or Florida would have done against Nevada at the cold and windy game. That will never happen…because they prefer to take on cupcakes to pad their stats.

Regarding giving non-AQ teams a shot a a BCS game. That wasn’t done for sympathy or fair play. They only allowed those changes for fear of major lawsuits. What you fail to mention is the distribution of wealth is still being protected by the AQ conferences. TCU will only get about 3 mil out of the Rose bowl after splitting with the rest of the conference. The payout to TCU was lower than to Wisconsin too. Same with BSU and Oklahoma in 2007. Oklahoma got a payout almost 3 times of what BSU got. How is that fair?

My main complaint is that teams are punished by their conference, not by their actual play. Regardless if you think the WAC and Mtn West are weak conferences, they are still better than the Big East and this year, the ACC. Furthermore, teams are ranked by the BCS system. so if a team from the WAC, or Mtn West are ranked in the top 10, should they not also be allowed to enjoy major bowls like AQ teams in the top 10 get? Afterall, it was the BCS that ranked the teams to begin with. If they BCS conferences continue to ignore their own rankings and let a 1 loss BSU end up in the “crap” bowl…hy even have BCS rankings anyway? Case in point…unranked Huskies get a BCS bowl and 10th ranked BSU gets a crappy bowl. You can use whatever whitewash you want to sweetcoat it…but the BCS and the conferences that are AQ in it, represent a cartel in any sense of the word. In the financial world, moves like this would be prosecuted as antitrust.

Just because the BCS throws the “outsiders” a bone once in awhile, does not make it right. There are 10 positions for BCS games including the NCG. Yet, only 1 non-AQ team will ever get one in any season. So…9 teams from the AQ get BCS and 1 from non-AQ get gets it. The 6 AQ conferences corral 9 BCS games and payouts. The 5 non-AQ conferences get 1 BCS and 1 payout…which is smaller than their foe and has to be shared at a greater percentage to their conference. How the NCAA can continue this is beyond me.

smokehouse56 says:Jan 2, 2011 7:59 PM

Only some know nothing would call TCU a “great ball team.” What the hell is a “ball team.” And he make decisions that affect the NCAA and college football and the Big Ten?

endsports says:Jan 3, 2011 11:40 AM

Don’t they call Steve Spurrier “the old ball coach”?

I wasn’t aware Non AQ schools got a smaller payout than their opponent in the same bowl. If that’s the case, they have a valid complaint.

But remember, it isn’t just the BCS that likes the system the way it is. The bowls don’t want a school that won’t bring a big following of fans with open wallets. They don’t want a school that has very little TV market interest.

It’s all about the money for the local bowls. It has nothing to do with anything else. The games themselves, other than the “BCS Championship Game” are meaningless exhibitions.

ESPN has the games on its channels this year, which has resulted in smaller audiences BUT that doesn’t mean that it’s hurt. The Rose Bowl was down 15% in ratings because it was on ESPN but it was ESPN’s highest non-NFL telecast and attendance was better than last year (Just as attendance for last year’s Fiesta Bowl, which featured Boise State and TCU, was considerably better than this year’s with UConn and Oklahoma, which also drew a 6.7, which is down considerably from the 8.2 for last year).

bluethunder1959, TCU will actually get more than $3 mil but you’re right, they won’t get a full share like Wisconsin. To be fair, last year, two non-AQs made the BCS but the chicken shits made them play each other. Also, you might as well go outside and talk to your dogs because most of what you’re saying is falling on deaf ears. You could make all the sense in the world and it won’t help with this bunch. Even if a team like TCU or Boise State were to go independent and schedule 12 games on the road against the best BCS teams, they’d find a way to denigrate what they did.